The corrupting influence of money in politics is an ancient problem that resists reform. That doesn't mean we should stop trying.

The Watergate-era system of public financing of presidential elections has withered as candidates required, and could raise, more money than the law could provide. The last major federal campaign financing reform, the McCain-Feingold law, has been eviscerated by Supreme Court rulings. The court's 2010 Citizens United ruling rolled back campaign spending restrictions going back a century, opening the floodgates to spending by corporations, unions and special interests.

Congress should act to impose new limits on corporate campaign spending, if it can find a way that will pass Constitutional muster. It should separate political advocacy organizations from public charities and require disclosure of donations to "independent" campaign organizations.

But more ambitious reforms are needed, and one appeared last week, when Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., introduced the Fair Elections Now Act, a bill that would dramatically change how candidates run for Congress.

Durbin's bill would establish a voluntary system of public financing, with candidates agreeing to limit the size of contributions to their campaign in return for matching financing from the government. Candidates who qualify by raising a minimum amount from small donors would limit contributions to $150. In return, the Fair Elections Fund would provide grants to launch the campaign, match small donations up to a cap and provide "media vouchers" for TV advertising, which is typically the campaign's largest expense.

To encourage voter involvement, the bill would establish a tax credit to reward small donors to political campaigns. To pay for all this, the bill would slap a .05 percent fee on annual federal contracts over $10 million.

It sounds a bit like a Rube Goldberg contraption, but there are no simple fixes for our campaign financing system. This approach is reminiscent of the Clean Elections Law approved by Massachusetts voters in 1998. It, too, used public matching funds to make it easier for candidates without the backing of special interest groups to run for office. It would have worked, if the power players on Beacon Hill hadn't killed it.

Durbin's bill, which already has 16 sponsors, including both Massachusetts senators, might work if given the chance. Since Republicans control the House and have been hostile to campaign finance reform, we're not likely to find out any time soon. But there's an election this November, and voters who hold this unproductive Congress in such low regard should be told how big-money interests contribute to the partisan paralysis in Washington — and what they can do about it.